In the Matter of an Impounded Case - SJC-13866

Massachusetts SJC New Opinions

Filed March 19th, 2026

Detected March 20th, 2026

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a single justice's denial of a petitioner's request for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, concerning a care and protection proceeding. The court found the petitioner had adequate alternative remedies through the Appeals Court and did not demonstrate why review could not be obtained through standard appellate channels.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) issued an opinion in case SJC-13866, affirming a single justice's decision to deny a petitioner's request for extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. The petitioner sought review of a Juvenile Court order placing his child in state custody and requested the recusal of the Juvenile Court judge. The SJC found that the petitioner had not shown why review could not be adequately obtained through the Appeals Court, citing G. L. c. 231, § 118, and the standard appellate process from a final judgment.

This decision reinforces the principle that G. L. c. 211, § 3, is a remedy of last resort. Regulated parties, particularly those involved in family law or child welfare proceedings, should be aware that they must exhaust all other available remedies, including standard appeals and interlocutory review under G. L. c. 231, § 118, before seeking extraordinary relief from the SJC. Failure to demonstrate the inadequacy of these alternative means will likely result in the denial of such petitions, as occurred in this case.

What to do next

Review SJC Rule 2:21(2) for requirements on seeking extraordinary relief.
Ensure all alternative remedies (e.g., standard appeals, G. L. c. 231, § 118) are exhausted before petitioning for G. L. c. 211, § 3 relief.
Document the inadequacy of alternative remedies when seeking extraordinary judicial review.

Source document (simplified)

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557- 1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-13866 IN THE MATTER OF AN IMPOUNDED CASE. March 19, 2026. Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. Practice, Civil, Care and protection proceeding. The petitioner appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, relating to a care and protection proceeding in the Juvenile Court. A judge in that court issued a temporary order placing the petitioner's child in the custody of the Department of Children and Families. In his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition, the petitioner sought immediate review of that order by this court and immediate assembly and transmittal of the record. In addition, the petitioner contended that the Juvenile Court judge must recuse herself. The single justice denied relief on the ground that the petitioner had an adequate alternative remedy available to him in the Appeals Court. We affirm. The case is before us pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21 (2), as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which requires the petitioner to "set forth the reasons why review of the trial court decision cannot adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment in the trial court or by other available means." The petitioner has not made this showing. The petitioner can raise his claims, including his claim that the judge was obligated to recuse herself, on appeal from a final judgment. See, e.g., Adoption of Norbert, 83 Mass. App. Ct. 542, 545-546 (2013); Parenteau v. Jacobson, 32 Mass. App. Ct. 97, 103-104 (1992). In addition, the petitioner could have sought immediate relief from any interlocutory ruling of the Juvenile Court under G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par. See Care & Protection of Rashida, 488

Mass. 217, 224-236 (2021) (reviewing questions reported by Appeals Court single justice on petition under G. L. c. 231, § 118). See also Saade v. Efron, 493 Mass. 1028, 1029 (2024), quoting Greco v. Plymouth Sav. Bank, 423 Mass. 1019, 1019-1020 (1996) ("Review under G. L. c. 211, § 3, does not lie where review under c. 231, § 118, would suffice"). The fact that the petitioner did not timely file a petition for such relief does not mean that it was an inadequate means of obtaining review. See Tran v. Liberty Mut. Group, Inc., 490 Mass. 1001, 1001 (2022). The single justice neither abused his discretion nor committed any other error of law by denying relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. Judgment affirmed. The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law. The petitioner, pro se.